Sunnyvale staff propose Class 2B buffered bike lane on Matilda Avenue to close network gap

City of Sunnyvale staff presented the Matilda Bike Lane Study at a community meeting, proposing to convert one vehicle lane on Matilda Avenue between the US-101 off-ramp and Maude Avenue into a Class 2B buffered bike lane to close an existing southbound gap and align with the northbound configuration.

The plan is intended to “improve the safety for bicyclists by installing the new Class 2B buffered bike lane,” Project Manager Vin Lee said during the presentation. Staff said the configuration would match the existing northbound lane treatment and would include green intersection markings at conflict points per city policy.

The study notes that the northbound direction already has a three-lane cross section with a buffered bike lane; the southbound direction in the study segment currently has four travel lanes and no bike lane. Models run for the project show small average increases in vehicle delay if one lane is removed: about three seconds in the morning peak, 12 seconds in the evening peak and six seconds on weekends, staff said. The proposed bike-lane cross-section would provide a six-foot bike lane and a roughly six- to seven-foot buffer.

The project is drawn from the City of Sunnyvale’s Active Transportation Plan (ATP), a council‑adopted guidance document. Angela Obeso, interim transportation and traffic division manager, said: "What this project's looking at is specific to this one segment, and the larger bicycling network," and that staff will present its recommendation to the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Commission (BPAC) and then to city council for final direction.

Staff described outreach completed to date: the study began data collection in March, an initial public meeting was held in August, and the presentation at this meeting followed additional pop‑up outreach and an online survey. Project staff reported talking with about 74 people at the Sunnyvale Farmers Market and said the online questionnaire includes five questions for respondents. Vin Lee said counts were collected for AM, PM, midday and weekend periods and that collision history for the corridor was analyzed; staff said those data will be made available in the BPAC/council packet.

Public comment at the meeting raised several recurring concerns. Daniel Karpilevich, a resident, urged the city to close a short northbound gap near Maude Avenue and to consider corridor‑level signal coordination, saying, "It makes no sense to have a northbound corridor without the southbound side." Several residents questioned whether the models and lane removal would understate real congestion and pollution effects; one resident observed, "We're adding half a lane, and we're putting barriers," and urged a broader, corridor‑level approach.

Staff acknowledged those trade‑offs. They said the proposed design focuses on filling the local gap identified in the ATP and that more extensive measures—signal re‑timing, protected intersections, or physical curbs/bollards to upgrade to a Class 4 protected facility—would require additional study, funding and council direction. Staff also noted that a portion of the corridor near Awani Avenue is under Caltrans jurisdiction and will require coordination before any striping or lane changes at that location.

The study team addressed design alternatives discussed at prior outreach, including protected intersection treatments. Staff said provisions that would add separate bicycle signal phases or protected intersection layouts could increase delay at some intersections and fall outside the current project scope. Vin Lee explained that implementing a separate bicycle signal phase at some right‑turn locations would likely back up the right‑turn lane into through traffic because of high turning volumes at peak times (staff said roughly 400 right turns occur in the morning peak at one approach), creating additional delay.

Next steps outlined by staff: staff will compile public input and the technical analysis into a staff recommendation, present that recommendation to BPAC for advisory comment, and then present the item to city council, which can accept the recommendation, modify it, direct additional study, or decline the project. Staff emphasized that the city currently has funding for the study but not yet for construction; additional funding would be needed to build any facility and to pursue upgrades beyond the Class 2B buffered design. Project staff also said they will consider post‑installation bike counts and suggested a one‑year after‑installation review if the project is built.

The discussion continued to center on balancing improved bicyclist safety and comfort with vehicular flow on a major north‑south commute corridor. Staff urged continued public feedback through the project web page and survey and said collected data and the staff recommendation will be included in the BPAC and council materials when the project advances.